House Charges Wright on Ethics Breach

WASHINGTON--The House Ethics Committee, with Democrats and Republicans united, formally charged Speaker Jim Wright (D Texas) yesterday with 69 violations of the chamber's rules, including what the panel's chair called "a scheme to evade" limits on outside earnings.

After a 10-month, $1.5 million investigation, the committee of six Democrats and six Republicans voted unanimously to issue a report finding "reason to believe" Wright had run afoul of House rules requiring reporting of gifts, barring acceptance of gifts from persons with a direct interest in legislation and limiting outside earned income.

"I know in my heart I have not violated any of the rules of that institution," Wright said in a speech to a labor meeting shortly after the ethics report was released.

He said he had asked "very urgently, very earnestly" for a quick meeting with the committee "to confront them, to confront the allegations head-on, face-to-face."

At a news conference, committee chair Rep. Julian Dixon (D-Calif.) emphasized that Wright is innocent until the charges are proven, and he underscored that proving them requires a much heavier weight of evidence than the step taken Monday, which is the panel's equivalent of an indictment.

The committee's move set in motion a series of steps in which Wright can defend himself and the panel must prove with "clear and convincing" evidence that the violations occurred. That is likely ultimately to throw the matter before the full House, where Wright's position as the nation's highest elected Democrat, or even his House seat, could be on the line.

Possible Punishments

Possible punishments range from a reprimand to expulsion from the House, although lawmakers in both parties seemed to think the final decision would come down to whether Wright should be reprimanded or simply chastised for poor judgment and let off without formal punishment.

Wright immediately began his defense in earnest, operating what one supporter, Rep. Charles Wilson (D-Texas) called "a war room" out of his office.

"At some point we've got to start figuring out who's on our side and who's on the other side," Wilson said.

Wilson predicted Wright would win on the floor, "losing a few cowardly Democrats and picking up some brave Republicans."

The most serious allegation against Wright, that he accepted some $145,000 in gifts over a 10-year period from George Mallick, a Fort Worth developer, also had the narrowest margin of support on the Ethics Committee.

According to records of internal committee votes released along with the report of the panel's special outside counsel, Democrats Chester Atkins of Massachusetts and Bernard Dwyer of New Jersey joined the committee's six Republicans for an eight to four margin on that issue.

The panel agreed with its counsel, Chicago attorney Richard J. Phelan, that Mallick's major interests in real estate and oil and gas ventures and in redevelopment of Fort Worth's historic stockyards district gave him a direct interest in legislation on taxation and on certain appropriations bills. His financing arrangements with savings and loan institutions also gave him an interest in legislation involving the Savings and Loan industry, the committee found.

But Wright's lawyer, William C. Oldaker, called that "doublespeak" and said "it's one of the most outra geous readings of legislative history" he has seen. Overall, the report contains "a lot of noise, a lot of clamoring, but very little substance," he said.

Other matters before the committee were more clear cut. The panel voted unanimously that there was reason to believe Wright failed to report as gifts the use of a car and Fort Worth condominium he and his wife received from Mallick. Committee members voted 10-2 that Mrs Wright's $18,000-a-year salary from a Mallick-Wright company should also be characterized as a gift, saying she did little or nothing to earn the money.

The panel also voted 10-2 that certain bulk sales of Wright's book, Reflections of a Public Man appeared to have been used to evade House ceilings on outside earned income.

"In the committee's view, seven bulk sales of Rep. Wright's book... demonstrated an overall scheme to evade the House outside earned income limit because [speaking] honorarium payments were recharacterized as royalties," Dixon said.

The committee voted unanimously to issue its statement of alleged violation formally charging the speaker with breaking the rules.